Who or what throws the dice for atheists?



13112013, 02:46 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
I'm usually picky about who throws the dice for me


13112013, 03:11 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
Oh Mama! Some hot earthigh action coming up!


1 user Likes morondog's post 
13112013, 03:11 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 02:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:(13112013 01:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: This is due to the uncertainty principle and not some interaction. The uncertainty principle concerns itself with our ability to know precisely the value of two complimentary variables such as position and momentum. Our lack of knowledge of a variable is not a consequence of some interaction of these two variables but rather a consequence of OUR interaction with the thing being observed. 

13112013, 03:22 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 03:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The uncertainty principle concerns itself with our ability to know precisely the value of two complimentary variables such as position and momentum. Yes. We cannot know both simultaneously because both cannot exist simultaneously. Where did you learn quantum mechanics? (13112013 03:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Our lack of knowledge of a variable is not a consequence of some interaction of these two variables but rather a consequence of OUR interaction with the thing being observed. Yeah, but that's wrong. Things exist as combinations of wave functions. Interactions of those wave functions physically change them. That whole "well we can't know, but they're still defined somehow anyway" bit? That old schtick you're using here? I... guess you don't realize what you're doing. Because that's precisely the sort of hidden variable business we (I say 'we' generally but I remind you that in this case it includes you) have already discounted in this very thread. So I have to ask: just what exactly are you attempting to argue? Just what do you believe here? It's not coming across very coherently. ... this is my signature! 

1 user Likes cjlr's post 
13112013, 03:34 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 03:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:(13112013 03:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The uncertainty principle concerns itself with our ability to know precisely the value of two complimentary variables such as position and momentum. Are you claiming that a particle can have position or can have momentum, but can't have both at the same time? I don't think that is right, but admittedly my education on quantum mechanics comes from a cracker jack box. My understanding is that for a particle both momentum and position exist, they always exists, and that our simultaneous knowledge about those two variables is what can't exist. 

13112013, 04:14 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 03:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Are you claiming that a particle can have position or can have momentum, but can't have both at the same time? It always has both, yes, but they can't both simultaneously exist as welldefined singular values. (13112013 03:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: My understanding is that for a particle both momentum and position exist, they always exists, and that our simultaneous knowledge about those two variables is what can't exist. That's not quite so. I thought I had gone over this in the examples I mentioned earlier. Let us return again to the spin1/2 particle. We measure zspin. Therefore we know precisely what the zspin is. But here's the catch  we also know precisely what the xspin is! And the xspin is a linear combination of xup and xdown. Measuring the zspin resolves it to one of its eigenstates (because that's what measurement operators do). And xspin? It does not have a single value. It exists (exactly and precisely and demonstrably!) as the combination. The only real coin toss in the universe. There's no missing knowledge there. That is everything it's possible to know at any one time. The exact description in any given basis. A particle of spin1/2 in an xup state is simultaneously in an equal superposition of zup and zdown. It just is  that's all there is to it. And the amazing/terrifying thing is, knowing everything there is to know (in the quantum universe) does not tell us everything we'd expect to know in a classical universe. You don't have to like the idea . Nobody liked it at first (you may know Einstein hated it!)  but nobody can disprove it. In 90 years of modern quantum mechanics... It's supposing otherwise that's sneaking hidden variables in. That the limits on what we can know are on us instead of being on the nature of the universe itself. Or, in other words, quantum mechanics should follow classical rules. Alas, but no. ... Position and (linear) momentum are essentially similar. Since they exist as bundles of wave functions (this is the foundational premise of quantum mechanics!) then, for the same particle, we may consider positionspace and momentumspace to be two complementary ways of describing it. (momentumspace is simply the space spanned by momentum vectors instead of position vectors  a traditional physics way of looking at things, but a bit of a wonky idea when first encountered). But the two are related (one is proportional to the rate of change of the other). Now, they are waves, and so their rate of change is contained in (what is basically equivalent to) their frequency. So, shifting back and forth through domains is done via Fourier transforms (an extremely useful and beautiful mathematical tool). (and actually all of what looks like an application of Fourier methods is actually itself demonstrably a consequence of how wave functions  eg position and momentum  are defined in the first place). If position is precisely known, the description of position in space looks like a delta function (it exists at one single point, and is zero elsewhere). What, then, is its momentum? That is, mathematically speaking, what does the transform look like? The answer is that it looks very complicated. It is composed of a combination (a spectrum, really, since we're dealing with continuous variables...) of all possible momentum vectors. Therefore by insisting on an exact value for position the state must have an infinite variety of possible momenta. The same applies in reverse; a single exact momentum requires an infinite spread of positions. (in real life we can't actually know anything to such exact precision  but the uncertainty relations deal with the product of uncertainties). Born, one of the early quantum physicists/mathematicians, actually has the canonical commutation relation inscribed on his gravestone. ... And like I said, if you really want to insist on the ol' God of the Gaps, you've just framed the wrong question. "Why randomness?" has an answer. "How randomness?" does not. So feel free to say 'God' until science gets there. ... this is my signature! 

13112013, 04:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 13112013 06:08 PM by Rahn127.)




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
When it comes to uncertainty, I am uncertain if there is inherent uncertainty or if it's simply the way in which we attempt to detect each of the values.
If you are bouncing a photon off an electron to determine it's position, the very act of "bouncing" (non technical term) is also altering the position and momentum of that electron, but you can gain one of the values you are looking for. http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes...ciple.html The uncertainty isn't inherent. The uncertainty comes from our methods of detection As those methods change, we'll get a more accurate view. Insanity  doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results 

13112013, 05:32 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 03:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:(13112013 03:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The uncertainty principle concerns itself with our ability to know precisely the value of two complimentary variables such as position and momentum. Gotta disagree with you on this. The uncertainty is a product of measurement, it is not inherent in the particle. Heisenberg said it. "It can be expressed in its simplest form as follows: One can never know with perfect accuracy both of those two important factors which determine the movement of one of the smallest particles—its position and its velocity. It is impossible to determine accurately both the position and the direction and speed of a particle at the same instant." Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

13112013, 05:36 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 04:20 PM)Rahn127 Wrote: When it comes to uncertainty, I am uncertain if there is inherent uncertainty or if it's simply the way in which we attempt to detect each of the values. It is not likely that we will  the uncertainty and the accuracy are physically connected. To increase accuracy in the measurement of one variable, one must increase the energy of the probing particle. This causes greater inaccuracy in the knowledge of the other variable. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

1 user Likes Chas's post 
13112013, 05:53 PM




RE: Who or what throws the dice for atheists?
(13112013 05:32 PM)Chas Wrote: Gotta disagree with you on this. The uncertainty is a product of measurement, it is not inherent in the particle. Heisenberg said it. What you and Rhan are talking about is the Observer effect which is not the same as uncertainty. 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)